Cougars in Oregon

[DefianceOrBust]

... or simply not pursued.

ODFW 2006' Cougar Management Plan: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cou ... -Final.pdf

Another important consideration is the context within which the population estimate would be used under the proposed 2006 CMP. The population estimate is only important in 1 of 5 objectives outlined in the CMP. Objective 1 seeks to manage the state’s cougar population at a level well above that required for long-term sustainability. Because the minimum population objective is well above the level of sustainability, and because of the demonstrated resilience of cougar populations (see Chapter II, 2006 CMP and Cougar Management Guidelines, 2005, page 40), exact estimates of cougars are not necessary to achieve Objective 1. In fact, as referenced by the Cougar Management Guidelines (2005, p 45), Caughley (1977) stated “the majority of ecological problems can be tackled with help of indices of abundance, absolute estimates of densities being unnecessary luxuries.”

[DefianceOrBust]

a follow up to raven's 8 cougar image:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/f ... to/?photos

[DefianceOrBust]

ODFW 2006' Cougar Management Plan: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cou ... -Final.pdf

Formulas provided in Science (Carbone C., and J. L. Gittleman, 2002. A common rule for
the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295: 2273-2276) were used to calculate the maximum
number of cougars that could be supported by the primary prey, deer and elk, in Oregon.
Assuming the average weight of all cougars is 110 lbs, the maximum number of cougars that
could be supported by the ~121,000 elk and ~560,000 deer in Oregon is 7,644 (95% confidence
interval for this estimate was 3,496 – 17,045)(the presence of secondary prey species would
make this estimate higher). This compares favorably to a statewide population estimate of 5,101
in 2003 and a maximum population estimate of 7,628, as stated in the 2006 CMP.

I chuckled at the breadth of the 95% CI: 3,496 – 17,045

[Koda]

Seems like the last couple years there were trip reports on this forum of cougar sightings including photos. 2 Cats together S or Hood River and 1 cat on Hamilton Mtn IIRC....

Mortality maps for before and after 1994 dog ban.

that data correlates nicely with my own anecdotal observations of a decline in deer population over the last 25 years of hunting.

Seems like the ban on hunting cougars with dogs is creating an imbalance in managing the population, obviously the over-saturation of cougar tags is not effective. And now were putting the wolf back into the picture too.

We could put a moratorium on ungulate hunting until the wildlife population stabilized itself, but then the ODFW would go broke and have to set out picnic tables at wildlife refuges and viewing areas so they could charge a "wildlife pass" (sarcasm here... ) but seriously that's not gonna happen.

A compromise would be to bring back some cougar hunts allowing dogs, but the folks that voted for that ban wont let that happen.... when the wolves rebound enough they will go after sport hunting too. So were stuck in a dilemma. On a side note with more wolf sightings in the future will be more hikers with guns... oh the irony.


FWIW I've only seen one definite maybe two cougars and very briefly. And in 2012 I had fresh cougar tracks appear overnight on the shore of the small lake we camped at off trail near Diamond Peak. Not the only set of fresh cougar tracks I've seen I have no doubt there are plenty out there.

[retired jerry]

Interesting data DOB. It is possible to count Cougars.

You must be opposed to the ban on dog hunting Raven. I sort of agree with you. That isn't the worst thing Cougars have to suffer. Starving is probably worse, for example, and all wild animals suffer that on occasion. Makes Cougars fearful of us which is good for both of us.

I think we should let nature manage itself as much as possible. We should do a lot of observing to make sure we're not screwing things up. Manage at human/wilderness interface.

[Limey]

During the past month a cougar has been killing pigs at a barn less than a mile from my house. A few years ago one winter I had cougar tracks in my yard. I see tracks all the time when we're out bushwhacking. They are definitely out there, we just don't get to see them very often. The strangest track sighting I ever had was in an area off FR4420. We had bushwhacked through a swampy muddy area and 30 mins later were passing back through when along with our tracks there were bear tracks and right alongside of the bear tracks there were cougar tracks. We never did see either animal.

[DefianceOrBust]

If there are 5700 cougars in Oregon, then the density is 6 cougars per 100 square mile (for the entire state).

I no longer find that difficult to believe.

We've all heard that home ranges are approximately 100sqmi. That is for males. And is an average. However, female home ranges are much smaller, 1/3rd to 1/4th that area. In addition to being smaller, female home ranges overlap. For example, ODFW's 2006 CMP reports:

In northeast Oregon, cougar home ranges varied between 39 - 175 km2 (15 - 68 mi2, n = 17) for females and 167 - 436 km2 (64 – 168 mi2, n = 8) for males (80% kernel home range estimates, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data).

Those figures are for NE Oregon. The current (since 2000) perspective on home range size is that the primary determinant is not territoriality, but prey abundance.

Other pieces of the puzzle include the generalization that females bread serially without pause, and Oregon litter size is 2.8 kits/litter.

So within a female home range, there are 4 all-age cougars (mother+kits+father = 1 + 2.8 + 1*0.33).

Using the NE Oregon female home range estimates of 15-68 sqmi, the density is 24 to 6 all-age cougars per 100 sqmi.

So another way to look at the ODFWs population estimate is that 5700 all-age cougars represents a state-wide average of 1.5 breeding pairs per 100 sqmi. That seems reasonable to me given the map below and the all-cause mortality maps I posted earlier.

The map below has three grey-scale regions, each covering approximately 1/3 of the state. Based on the NE Oregon figure of 24 - 6 per 100mi, suppose the average density in the entire dark region is 18 all-age cougars for 100 sqmi. Then if there were zero cougars in the other 2/3rds of the state (middle and light regions), then the statewide average would 6 per 100 sqmi, or 5700 total.

[raven]

RJ,

You were reading the report incorrectly -- they cannot count with any accuracy, which means they extrapolate worse. From DOB's cite:

ODFW 2006' Cougar Management Plan: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cou ... -Final.pdf

Formulas provided in Science (Carbone C., and J. L. Gittleman, 2002. A common rule for
the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295: 2273-2276) were used to calculate the maximum
number of cougars that could be supported by the primary prey, deer and elk, in Oregon.
Assuming the average weight of all cougars is 110 lbs, the maximum number of cougars that
could be supported by the ~121,000 elk and ~560,000 deer in Oregon is 7,644 (95% confidence
interval for this estimate was 3,496 – 17,045)(the presence of secondary prey species would
make this estimate higher). This compares favorably to a statewide population estimate of 5,101
in 2003 and a maximum population estimate of 7,628, as stated in the 2006 CMP.

I chuckled at the breadth of the 95% CI: 3,496 – 17,045

First, point estimates of ungulates were used as truths on the input side as the mean in a logarithmic distribution that just happens to have .5 and 2 times as the bounds on the 95% confidence interval.
Second, apply that band to cougars at a 5500 point estimate and the 95% range is 2750-11000. Is 11000 believable? No, then you have to question the choice of distribution and the methodology.
Third, the average weight is a key number, but let's leave out its variance.
Fourth, apply the bounds to each category of ungulates, then apply the cougar estimating procedure to the 95% confidence limits. Almost any cougar population might pass muster.

All these numbers are is cover for a story -- better than no numbers, but the quality of the numbers has to be understood as evidence that the "science" is not up to the task of management.

Last, I do consider hunting with dogs to be a form of cruel punishment. Both for the cougar being chased and the survivor guilt of the ones who were not chased, but heard the chase. It forces unnatural movement patterns with unknown ecological impacts.

That group of cats together is evidence of an unstudied social life that humans have largely destroyed through culling key individuals repeatedly. There is evidence that before guns were introduced to North America black bears had massive gatherings at times -- more than 100 individuals were counted traveling together by an early explorer. His Indian guide (Algonquin?) agreed that more than 50 was a large number.

[retired jerry]

Ahhh... you're opposed to dog hunting

Even if the estimates are innaccurate, it's better than just throwing up your hands

Are you saying we should have no hunting?

[backcountryhunter]

What is the big deal here with cougars?...and a little while back it was wolves?

So what? There are wild animals in the wild. And some pretty secretive ones that can eat you if they choose to. Deal with it.

My two best friends, hiking and hunting partners are both retired wildlife biologists. 1 from ODFW and the other from US Fish and Wildlife Service. We talk about this stuff all the time. Population models kind of bore me.

What I do not appreciate though is certain individuals on this forum suggesting that they were/ are liars and dishonest by "cooking" the books on wildlife population numbers. These folks are scientists that take their work in the field very seriously.

Has anyone contacted Whitaker or Jackson regarding the 2006 Cougar Management Plan? Probably not.